The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect/merge to Paypal#Criticism. I have left the history intact so that merging of pertinent material can take place but have not performed the merge myself. Shereth 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paypalsucks.com[edit]

Paypalsucks.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable website. The article has little or no context. Merge with Paypal#Criticism Save-Me-Oprah^(talk) 00:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So Fix It! A quick search found RS coverage from which to expand the article. Current state is not a reason for deletion. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Travellingcari. 30 more reliable sources exist in addition to the two that are already there. Article is simply in need of work. Merging it into the paypal article would be harmful to that article. William Ortiz (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Will and Travellingcari. "Current state is not a reason for deletion." --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD is not cleanup The subject is notable with plenty of coverage from reliable sources, so fix it instead of taking the easy way out and planting an AFD template on something that doesn't need it. KEEP
• Speedy Delete It's not notable; and if you can prove to me how it is, please do so (not trying to be rude, but I want to know why the above people said this wikipedia should be kept. The references are years old, too.Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Citing that references are 'old' is very poor reasoning for deletion. It is ridiculous to attempt to discredit the Forbes review and interview for being from 2005. Once gained, notability cannot be lost. SashaNein (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of reliable sources available to establish notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge/redirect to Paypal#Criticism isn't a bad option either. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Unless I'm barking mad, it's a tiny stub of an article to a site attacking PayPal, no? This website is seriously a notable subject for an entry in something purporting to be an encyclopedia? Reference in PayPal article as a critical site, sure. But given it's only notable due to PayPal... I'd look to merge. Having this in it's own article page increases the signal-to-noise ratio here. Minkythecat (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yeah it doesn't seem like it's notable but for some strange reason, there's a bunch of reliable sources about it. Also, I think merging it into the paypal article might be bad for the paypal article. William Ortiz (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The two are inextricably linked though. No PayPal, no PayPalSucks. PayPalSucks doesn't exist as a truly independent entity. It really needs a dose of IAR because it seems baffling the fact RS exist makes it notable in this case. Personally, I feel the page should go, with linky to the siter and some text in a criticism section for PayPal, which is where it seems to fit naturally. PayPal exists without PayPalSucks; the reverse isn't true. Minkythecat (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but ask for expansion. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It seems the article could be expanded significantly. Of course, there should still be a mention of the site in Paypal#Criticism... — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Paypal#Criticism per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect, as per nom. No inherent notability, dependent entirely on the PayPal website. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Paypal#Criticism for the same reasons given by Tim. Sarah 07:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Paypal#Criticism. Orderinchaos 08:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge per the comments made by Minkythecat, as it stands now the article is little more then a stub. While stubs may be ok in some cases, since this article is dependent upon the notability of PayPal, I feel it would serve better in that article. Q ^{T C} 04:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.